ESCALA DE AUTOESTIMA DE SI MISMO O PERSONAL:

I provide the texts below before making comparisons:

Mark 13:3: As Jesus was sitting εἰς τὸ ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν κατέναντι τοῦ ἱεροῦ . . .

Greek Zech 14:4: his [YHWH’s] feet will stand ἐπὶ τὸ ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν τὸ κατέναντι Ἰερουσαλήμ . . . Hebrew Zech 14:4: םלשורי ינפ־לע רשא םיתזה רה־לע אוהה־םויב וילגר ודמעו

Six reasons suggest that Mark 13:3 alludes to Zech 14:4. First, the replication of several lexemes from Zech 14:4 suggests the latter influences Mark 13:3. The phrase “on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple/Jerusalem” is unique to Zech 14:4. The “Mount of Olives” itself is mentioned explicitly only twice in Jewish scriptures,161 _{both times in Zech 14:4.}162 _{Given this fact, Mark’s identification of Jesus’} location as on “the Mount of Olives” could conceivably alert a scripturally literate reader to Zech 14.

Second, an extratextual datum, around 70 CE, Zech 14 seems to have been a popular text freighted with political and temple-related expectation. It arguably fomented, or at least justified, revolutionary actions of the Zealots around the time of the composition of Mark.163 _{Josephus suggests} that on scriptural grounds the group occupying the temple expected a divine intervention that would vindicate their enterprise and result in the defeat of the Romans.164 _{Josephus does not name the texts,} but Hengel argues persuasively that Dan 7 and Zech 14 are the most plausible candidates.165 _{That Zech} 14 might have provoked such expectation during the revolt is understandable given that it prophesies that the Lord will appear on the Mount of Olives, which is just opposite the temple and Jerusalem, and defeat the nations that do battle against Jerusalem.

160 _{See Bas van Iersel 1989, 160, who claims that Mark locates the discourse on the Mount of Olives in order to}

provide “a distinct colour . . . to the words Jesus speaks here.” He associates Jesus’ words with God’s judgment of Jerusalem in Zech 14:4 and Ezek 11:23.

161 _{The “ascent of Olives” is mentioned in 2 Sam 15:30. Only Zech 14 refers to “the mount.”}

162 _{Pitre (2005, 458 n 211) and Marcus (2009, 869) each note this allusion and claim that the contexts of Mark 13}

and Zech 14 closely correspond.

163 _{So Hengel 1988, 242.}

164 _{Josephus, War 5.7.3; 5.11.2; 6.2.1.}

134 Third, another extratextual datum, Josephus’s description of the actions of “an Egyptian false prophet” during the revolt indicates the importance of the Mount of Olives and attests to the above claim that Zech 14 arguably justified temple- and Jerusalem-related actions. Josephus describes “an Egyptian false prophet” who led his followers first to the desert, and then to the Mount of Olives in an effort to retake Jerusalem and disband the Romans.166 _{Other leaders led masses into the desert “under} the belief that God would there give them tokens of deliverance.”167 _{Josephus characterizes such leaders} as “deceivers and impostors, under the pretense of divine inspiration fostering revolutionary

changes.”168 _{The locations the leaders chose were not arbitrary, but were in line with the “divine}

inspiration,” and were arguably based on interpretations of scriptures. These leaders may have believed that their specific actions would result in the divinely appointed victory attested in those passages.169 The Egyptian’s choice of the Mount of Olives suggests the influence of Zech 14, particularly given the latter’s promise of divinely-assisted victory in Jerusalem against Israel’s enemies.

Fourth, the final extratextual datum, as mentioned in Section 3.3, coins minted in the first years of the revolt in 66–70 CE also suggest the importance of Zech 14 for the Zealots.170 _{On one side is} writtenשדק םלשורי or שדקה םלשורי, meaning “Jerusalem is Holy” or “Jerusalem the Holy” respectively. The other side pictures a cultic vessel. Such propaganda arguably reflects Zech 14:20–21 and its declaration that in “that day” (when the Lord comes with his angels), every cooking pot in the temple and in Jerusalem and Judah will be holy (שדק).171 _{These coins plausibly attest to the significance of Zech} 14 in fueling the Zealots’ expectations surrounding both the temple and Jerusalem. The coins only demonstrate the importance of Zech 14 to the Zealots, but the example of the “Egyptian false prophet” suggests that he and the Zealots were drawing upon a larger interpretative tradition. The latter may have been known by Mark. The extratextual data indicates that Zech 14 seems to have engendered specific expectations that pertained to the Mount of Olives, the temple, and the persecution of the city. The latter expectations are self-evidently germane to Mark 13. Mark’s placement of this discourse on the Mount of Olives may indicate both his awareness of Zech 14, and the fact that Zech 14 is significant for matters pertaining to Jerusalem and the temple.

166 _{Josephus, War 2.13.4–5; Ant. 20.8.6. C.A. Evans (1999) alerted me to this account in Josephus. Josephus}

translations by Thackeray.

167 _{Josephus, War 2.13.4.}

168 _{Ibid., 2.13.4.}

169 _{So Evans 1999, 377.}

170 _{This point is made by Marcus 2013, 22–30.}

Fifth, the context of Zech 14 closely relates to the subject of Mark 13 as a whole. At the most basic level, each pertains to a successful attack on the city of Jerusalem by gentiles. In each case, the affliction predicted is that upon women and houses,172 _{and the only action done by those attacked is} “flight to the mountains.”173 _{Additionally, Zech 14, like Mark, pertains to the coming reign of God.}174 Thus in setting forth Jesus’ prophecy regarding the fate of Jerusalem and the temple, Zech 14 would present itself as a helpful source for expressing the material.

Finally, sixth, Mark’s consistent use of Zech 9–14 throughout Mark makes it plausible that Mark 13:3 alludes to Zech 14:4. The cumulative weight of these arguments suggests that Mark alludes to Zech 14:4 in his description of the setting of the discourse. The presence of an allusion alone, however, may not require the reader of the Gospel to import elements from the rest of Zech 14 into Mark 13. Further factors must be sought, therefore, before establishing that Zech 14:4’s larger context is intended to inform the subsequent discourse. Intratextual data provides one such factor in the importance of setting in Mark’s Gospel. The setting in Mark often reflects a scriptural basis, and recognizing the scriptural precedent often informs the significance of the Markan text.175 _{I provide a single example that illustrates} this Markan practice.

5.8.3.1: Setting in Mark

The account of the Transfiguration in Mark 9:2–9 provides an example of this phenomenon. Without citations or numerous lexical replications, the physical setting (“a high mountain”) and the chronological marker (“after six days”) in Mark 9:2 allude to Ex 24. The allusions to Exodus are not merely ornamental, but serve to vindicate Jesus as “the prophet like Moses” whom the people await,176 the “chosen leader of Israel.”177 _{The scene in Mark 9:2–9 may be summarized accordingly: after six days} (μετὰ ἡμέρας ἓξ) Jesus takes three companions – Peter, James, and John – to the top of a high mountain (ὄρος ὑψηλόν). Jesus’ appearance is transfigured, Elijah and Moses appear with him, a cloud forms over them, and from the cloud God speaks to them. The above features correspond to the events in Ex 24,

172 _{Zech 14:2; Mark 13:15–17.}

173 _{Zech 14:5; Mark 13:14.}

174 _{The kingdom is in view in Mark 13:26–27 by comparison to 8:38–9:1, where the kingdom of God is associated}

with the coming of the Son of Man.

175 _{See e.g. Mark 1:4, 9, 12; 11:1–10; 14:16–25.}

176 _{So Marcus (2009, 1114) who says that God’s command, “Listen to him,” is a “virtual citation” of Deut 18:15,}

where the people shall listen to the prophet whom God “raises up.”

177 _{Evans 2001, 35. Of the Sinai theophany in Exodus, and its consequent importance for Mark 9, Evans says, “No}

other event in Jewish salvation history was remembered with greater reverence. At Sinai, God met his people, or, more precisely, met Moses the spokesman for and lawgiver to his people. Likewise, on the Mount of

136 where Moses and three companions – Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu (and 70 unnamed elders) – approach the Lord.178 _{Then a cloud covers the mountain for six days, and on the seventh day, a voice calls to} Moses, he ascends the mountain, beholds the glory of God,179 _{and God speaks to him.}180

Notably, Mark 9 does not cite Exodus, and it reproduces few exact lexemes from Ex 24.181 Nonetheless, Mark 9 alludes to the ascent of Sinai, and recognizing the allusions to Ex 24 affects the meaning of the Markan passage. Importantly, rather than numerous lexemes, it is the sequence of events of Ex 24 that Mark replicates, and the repetition of those events serves to illuminate the Markan context, showing Jesus to be the leader of the people of God who is endowed with God’s blessing. Nonetheless, numerous parallels obtain without lexical correspondence. For example, Moses

characteristically “ascended” (ἀνέβη) the mountain,182 _{whereas Jesus “brings them [James, Peter, John]} up” (ἀναφέρει) to the high mountain,183 _{and their “ascent” is implicit. The rest of the parallels (the} covering of the cloud, the voice from the cloud, the radiance of Jesus’ clothes,184 _{and the resultant fear)} work the same way: the events are replicated, typically in the order in which they occur in Exodus, but the lexemes are not replicated. Significantly, several scholars argue for the presence and function of an allusion to Ex 24,185 _{and all do so on the basis of the comparable setting and the likeness and order of} events. Thus whatever the precise meaning of the account, it is sufficient for our purposes to show that minor details describing the setting are scripturally allusive and function to alert the reader to the scriptural context for illumination of the Markan passage.

One could say the same for numerous passages in Mark: John’s appearance in the wilderness;186 Jesus’ testing in the wilderness;187 _{his entry into Jerusalem on a donkey;}188 _{the meal at Passover.}189 _None of these geographical or calendrical settings is a mere physical or temporal backdrop devoid of

178 _{Ex 24:1, 9; the parallels here cited are noted by Marcus 2009, 1114–15.}

179 _{Ex 24:15–18.}

180 _{Ex 24:16; 25:1–31:17.}

181 _{Mark reproduces the words, “six days,” “mountain” and “cloud.”}

182 _{Ex 24:1, 9, 12, 13, 15, 18.}

183 _{Mark 9:2.}

184 _{This feature is reminiscent of, but not exactly parallel to, Ex 34:29–35.}

185 _{See Mark commentaries, ad loc. of, e.g. Cranfield, Lane, Hooker, France, Collins, and Stein.}

186 _{Mk 1:4, in conjunction with Mark 1:3’s quotation of Isa 40:3.}

187 _{Mark 1:12–13; see the testing of Israel by God in the wilderness in Deut 8:2; Num 14:34. Hooker (1991, 49–51)}

sees reflections of Adam from Gen 2–3. Marcus (2000, 169–70) identifies numerous influential backgrounds: 1 Kgs 19:5–8, Apoc. Moses 17:4; Adam and Eve 6, 12–15; Isa 11:1–9.

188 _{Mark 11:1–10; see Zech 9:9.}

meaning.190 _{Rather, each of these passages in Mark contains scriptural allusions, often marked by the} setting in Mark, where the respective contexts of the antecedent texts have an instructive function in the Markan passage at hand. This phenomenon, an intratextual datum, lends some support to the suggestion that Jesus’ being seated on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple is not simply a physical backdrop to Jesus’ speech.191 _{Rather, the setting of Mark 13 alludes to Zech 14:4, and as in other Markan} texts, functions to alert the reader to look to Zechariah’s context for insight into the rest of Mark’s discourse. I do not, however, infer the influence of Zech 14 in the rest of Mark 13 from the setting alone. Additional evidence is found in both the likeness and ordering of the subsequent events and Mark’s use of several lexemes distinct to Zech 14 itself.

I return now to Mark 13:4. Seated on the Mount of Olives192 _{opposite the temple, four disciples} ask Jesus a two-part question related to his prophecy of the temple’s destruction: εἰπὸν ἡμῖν, πότε ταῦτα ἔσται καὶ τί τὸ σημεῖον ὅταν μέλλῃ ταῦτα συντελεῖσθαι πάντα.193 _{Nearly every single term in this} statement is relevant to the subsequent discourse, and as Pesch notes, “Die Frage selbst, dieser wichtige Schlüssel zum Verständnis der eschatologischen Rede, ist sehr unterschiedlich beurteilt worden.”194